By now I'm sure everyone knows about Oliver Stone's new movie called "W" about George W. Bush and friends. The film reportedly portrays him as a drunken, foul mouthed daddy's boy with tons of issues who treats the White House like a frat house. Now, some of us here agree with that description and some of us here disagree with that description. Stone intends to release the film in time for the November election. Here's my question and it is honestly non-partisan based:

Is it okay for a film maker to use his/her power and influence to make a film that is intentionally meant to alter the course of a U.S. presidential election?

Going by this week's EW article it doesn't sound like it's Stone that is intending to potentially effect the Presidential election but his producers. Stone seems to think it's more realistic to get it into theaters pre-inauguration but still perhaps after the election while the producers seem to be driving hard for a pre-election October release date.

I will say that after reading the EW article I don't have a lot of confidence in the film. Stone seems to be doing this as a lark. He seems pretty dismissive of the movie kind of makes pains to separate this film from the more serious "message" movies that he did like Nixon. It almost sounds more like U-Turn.

Is it okay for a film maker to use his/her power and influence to make a film that is intentionally meant to alter the course of a U.S. presidential election?

Is it ok to schedule an election that is intentionally meant to inflate profits for a movie?

As long as there's enough time before the election to address/counter/confirm/debate whatever issues are raised in the movie, I think it's fine. I suspect it's more about profit than influencing the election, though.

My first instinct here is that if the film is 100% accurate in it's portrayal of Bush and company, then it probably shouldn't matter when it's released. Truth is truth. But if it's inaccurate, and intentionally makes Bush look worse than he is (maybe like snorting lines of coke off the desk in the Oval), then it would be in extremely poor taste to show it ever, and especially before the election, as it then becomes just another propaganda piece.

if Dubayah was running for re-election then I can see where there might be an issue, but unless it has McCain in every other scene I don't think it's going to effect anything. Besides, it's an Oliver Stone movie, so it'll probably bomb over here.

Logged

Because I can,also because I don't care what you want.XBL: OriginalCeeKayWii U: CeeKay

I'm not sure how it would effect the election since Bush isn't running in November. That being said Micheal Moore did his best to keep Bush out of the White House in 2004 and it didn't work.

I immediately thought of Michael Moore. I seriously doubt that his self-centered, obvious agenda movies have very much impact beyond the choir that goes to hear him preach. Oliver Stone might work on a bigger scale, but I think the same principle applies. He's unlikely to change very many people's opinions of George W Bush, and even that will have only an indirect effect on John McCain's prospects.

By now I'm sure everyone knows about Oliver Stone's new movie called "W" about George W. Bush and friends. The film reportedly portrays him as a drunken, foul mouthed daddy's boy with tons of issues who treats the White House like a frat house. Now, some of us here agree with that description and some of us here disagree with that description. Stone intends to release the film in time for the November election. Here's my question and it is honestly non-partisan based:

Is it okay for a film maker to use his/her power and influence to make a film that is intentionally meant to alter the course of a U.S. presidential election?

Discuss.

In my opinion it's fine. How is a film meant to impact an election any different than a radio show, a news article or a campaign poster? Where would YOU draw the line on the first amendment?

I don't think that releasing the movie in November will mean much to the election. If nothing else, Stone has lost a lot of people with his some of his recent films and he's not exactly known for his accuracy when dealing with historical subjects. The only people that might be swayed politically by this film probably aren't voting Republican anyway.

Logged

Roger: And you should know, I have no genitals.Syndey: That's alright. I have both.

Regardless of whether it's the truth or not, I don't care. I'm not spending $10 or wasting two hours of my life to learn more about the biggest fucktard to ever sully the White House. I wouldn't piss on Bush if he were on fire...why would I want to see a movie, even an unflattering one, about this asshole?